2010
DOI: 10.1080/02626661003683249
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bare soil evaporation under high evaporation demand: a proposed modification to the FAO-56 model

Abstract: This study evaluates the evaporation component of the FAO-56 model under high evaporation demand. To perform this, two data sets were used as field evaluation, and a second model was used for comparison (a model based on the square root of time, SRT). The results show that although FAO-56, the field data and the SRT model present similar cumulative evaporation over the study period (approximately one month), when the data are analysed daily, FAO-56 overestimated evaporation at the beginning of the process and … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
31
0
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
1
31
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This value was not included in the NIWR since the irrigation frequency and doses must be considered unknown in real-time applications, providing irrigation advice a week ahead. In addition, several authors were alerted about the partitioning between crop transpiration and soil evaporation based on the FAO-56 approach since the Kcb-NDVI relationship already includes a residual soil evaporation [29], and the depth of the evaporative soil layer could be overestimated [26].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…This value was not included in the NIWR since the irrigation frequency and doses must be considered unknown in real-time applications, providing irrigation advice a week ahead. In addition, several authors were alerted about the partitioning between crop transpiration and soil evaporation based on the FAO-56 approach since the Kcb-NDVI relationship already includes a residual soil evaporation [29], and the depth of the evaporative soil layer could be overestimated [26].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the evaporation from the wet soil surface was estimated for the field monitored and the results were conveniently discussed. For a broad description of the soil evaporation model used in this work, the reader is referred to the FAO-56 Manual [6] and further modifications proposed by Torres and Calera [26]. The adaptation of this model using information derived from satellite images is described by Campos et al [13].…”
Section: Estimation Of Crop Transpirationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…La simulación de la evaporación desde el suelo desnudo es uno de los aspectos que más desarrollo ha requerido desde la publicación del manual FAO56 (Allen, 2011;Torres and Calera, 2010). Por tanto, en muchos casos suele ser adecuado determinar la transpiración máxima de la cubierta mediante imágenes y aproximarse de forma específica al análisis de la componente evaporativa del suelo.…”
Section: 2-limitaciones a La Metodologíaunclassified
“…The maximum value of the crop coefficient was set equal to 1.2 because of the contribution of evaporation from wetting intervals greater than 3 or 4 days [3], and the fraction cover values were derived from SAVI values using the relationship obtained by [35] for a row structured vineyard. Some authors have shown that under high evaporation conditions, the FAO-56 model overestimates soil evaporation at the beginning of the process [36,37]. We applied the correction proposed by [37] to improve the daily evaporation estimation of FAO-56 using the reduction of the readily evaporable water (REW) coefficient to limit stage I (evaporation occurs at the same rate as atmospheric demand) and the application of a factor (m) to reduce the K r coefficient in stage II (evaporation is lower than the atmospheric demand as a consequence of soil retention forces).…”
Section: Calculation Of Soil Evaporation Coefficientmentioning
confidence: 99%